I am not using science. All I am saying is that maybe a non-intelligence outside space-time caused the universe to exist. This is not a scientific statement, it is philosophical.

Ok, no worries. Then it has to stand up to the same canons of logic that is issued on the God hypothesis.

As Craig says in his debates, the cause must be intelligent in order for it to choose to create a temporal effect (the beginning of the universe) and thus start time, despite being timeless, without any anticedent conditions placed on it. A mindless cause would require to continue regarding its anticedent conditions since a mindless thing operates to the parameters it performs, (it literally doesn't "know" any other way... since its mindless).

This is what Jonas was trying to discuss in another thread perhaps you can join in there.

I feel that an eternal, intelligent, all-powerful being would be bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain, despite the explanations given, because the explanations given put those limitations on both intelligence and eternal objects that are not ingelligent. In explanation: 1. You are an intelligent being, yet you would agree that you are bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain. 2. I have already been told by gilbo and Mr. Craig's explanation that an eternal mindless object is bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain. 3. No one has explained why the having an intelligent being be also eternal suddenly makes that being no longer bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain. Everyone trying to "explain" it has merely stated that it is so. This seems very close to special pleading for the eternal intelligent being.

//I feel that an eternal, intelligent, all-powerful being would be bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain, despite the explanations given, because the explanations given put those limitations on both intelligence and eternal objects that are not ingelligent. In explanation//

That's obviously not a valid answer, because it doesn't address why the limitations would apply to both scenarios.

1. False analogy. I'm not an eternal, all powerful being.2. That's correct. That's what we've both said from the very beginning.3. Demonstrably false. We've provided multiple explanations and analogies.

Therefore, you've *still* not provided a valid answer to my question:

Why do you feel that an eternal, intelligent, all-powerful being would be bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain, despite the explanations given?

God is all powerful, and therefore inherently able to create events (like the universe) with properties apart from Himself. Additionally, God's actions are the result of will and choice, rather than the result of a mindless causal chain of events eventually leading up to something (like our universe). So to bring about new event "x", God does not rely on an infinite past chain of events in order for the new event to occur. Instead, He wills for an event to happen and proceeds to cause it under His own power. It therefore does not matter if a thousand things happened in the past, or zero things happened in the past. There is nothing to prohibit God from causing event "x".

Now, a "mindless something" obviously cannot cause event "x" to happen at any given moment, nor apart from its own properties, because the mindless something has neither the power nor will to do so. Rather, it is the mindless something *itself* which would have to morph and change at random in order to cause an event. I repeat, it is the mindless something *itself* which would have to morph and change in order for a given "x" to happen. Therefore, in order for an event like our universe to occur, some mindless thing not yet in the form of the universe (whether matter or energy or whatever), would have to go through an *eternity* of past changes, in order to "reach" whatever specific change it was that marked the beginning of our universe. But of course, an eternity of past changes (i.e., events) is impossible.

Imagine that God creates a forest of trees. These trees exist apart from the properties of God Himself. Because God created them apart from Himself, they have a marked beginning and did not exist eternally. There is nothing that would prohibit an eternal, all powerful being from creating these trees: When God creates the trees, there they are! He created them of His own will and under His own power, and therefore, they did NOT for any reason require an infinite past series of events to come into existence.

Now, switch gears and imagine a similar reality, but where God does not exist. Further, imagine that our forest of trees did not have a finite existence. Rather, imagine that our ever changing forest *is* the eternal mindless something (i.e., the forest of trees represents the mindless something). Further still, imagine that we want to "get to" a special oak tree representing our universe. Well, this special oak tree would obviously have to come about from a *prior* oak tree - since it could not have been caused *outright* by God's will and power! And that *prior* oak tree must have come about from another past oak tree (another change or event, as we refer to it). And then, *that* oak tree must have come from yet another prior oak tree... So on and so forth. This past causal chain continues *infinitely*, meaning that the first oak tree I mentioned - the one representing our universe - would have never come about; the reason being that an (impossible) infinite causal chain must be traversed to get to that eventual or "final" tree representing our universe.

...The difference between the intelligent and mindless scenarios is really quite simple. It rests in the way that events *originate* in each scenario. Either they originate as an act of will and omnipotence, which means that any given "x" can have a *beginning outside of its cause*. Or, they originate via a mindless causal chain (like the special tree representing our universe), where it is the mindless existence *itself* which must change and morph to bring about events (which leads to an impossible infinite regress).

Ok, no worries. Then it has to stand up to the same canons of logic that is issued on the God hypothesis. As Craig says in his debates, the cause must be intelligent in order for it to choose to create a temporal effect (the beginning of the universe) and thus start time, despite being timeless, without any anticedent conditions placed on it. A mindless cause would require to continue regarding its anticedent conditions since a mindless thing operates to the parameters it performs, (it literally doesn't "know" any other way... since its mindless). This is what Jonas was trying to discuss in another thread perhaps you can join in there.

Lol just realised this is the thread I mentioned... Oops I look the fool

A mindless cause would require to continue regarding its anticedent conditions since a mindless thing operates to the parameters it performs,

No there were no anticedent conditions, but there will prior conditions. In a timeless world, it would be in a certain state. The forces in it would react to things in its prior state and change its state. It would enter a new state without entering a new time. This is a good model for how God would act. From the bible, we can infer that God has entered and exited space-time and he has performed multiple actions. So God does something similar. In the time-less realm, God performs an action of creating the universe. Next, he transformed into Jesus and came down to earth while having a part of himself in the timeless ream. Also, the bible discusses God's dealing with Lucifer this requires a sequence of events in a timeless realm where God an Lucifer interact with each other. This requires the theory I have put forward.

You might ask whether cause and effect can happen at the same time, and in fact the cause has to be before the effect. My answer is that this rule only applies to places with time not to places without it. Anyway, if time was such a necessary part of cause and effect, then God would be completely frozen outside space-time because time has stopped. Apparently things can be done without time. Cause and effect are not necessarily bound to time.

No there were no anticedent conditions, but there will prior conditions. In a timeless world, it would be in a certain state. The forces in it would react to things in its prior state and change its state. It would enter a new state without entering a new time. This is a good model for how God would act. From the bible, we can infer that God has entered and exited space-time and he has performed multiple actions. So God does something similar. In the time-less realm, God performs an action of creating the universe. Next, he transformed into Jesus and came down to earth while having a part of himself in the timeless ream. Also, the bible discusses God's dealing with Lucifer this requires a sequence of events in a timeless realm where God an Lucifer interact with each other. This requires the theory I have put forward. You might ask whether cause and effect can happen at the same time, and in fact the cause has to be before the effect. My answer is that this rule only applies to places with time not to places without it. Anyway, if time was such a necessary part of cause and effect, then God would be completely frozen outside space-time because time has stopped. Apparently things can be done without time. Cause and effect are not necessarily bound to time.

How can you talk of "entering a new state" without invoking the concept of time ? The second you've got change, the going from one state to the next, you've got a "before" and an "after", i.e. a quantum of time has passed. Even if you don't want to call it "time" I don't see how that's not what it is.

And how do you define "cause" or "effect" without resorting to time ? Are you thinking of atemporal correlations ? If so you still need something on the X axis - a spatial correlation (if X occurs in place A then Y occurs in place B ) or a correlation along any other variable (if X happens at temperature T1 then Y happens at temperature T2...)... in any case you've still either got a completely static system, or a system changing along a variable indistinguishable from "time".

3. In a timeless world, it would be in a certain state. The forces in it would react to things in its prior state and change its state.

4. It would enter a new state without entering a new time. This is a good model for how God would act. From the bible, we can infer that God has entered and exited space-time and he has performed multiple actions. So God does something similar. In the time-less realm, God performs an action of creating the universe. Next, he transformed into Jesus and came down to earth while having a part of himself in the timeless ream. Also, the bible discusses God's dealing with Lucifer this requires a sequence of events in a timeless realm where God an Lucifer interact with each other.

5. This requires the theory I have put forward.

6. You might ask whether cause and effect can happen at the same time, and in fact the cause has to be before the effect.

7. My answer is that this rule only applies to places with time not to places without it.

8. Anyway, if time was such a necessary part of cause and effect, then God would be completely frozen outside space-time because time has stopped.

9. Apparently things can be done without time. Cause and effect are not necessarily bound to time.

You forgot this part

(it literally doesn't "know" any other way... since its mindless).

1. How could you possibly know that... I have staked my claim in the logic that a mindless thing cannot choose to operate beyond what it is / set to do. A (mindless) clock doesn't suddenly turn its hands into legs and walk around does it? A (mindless) computer doesn't choose to turn itself on and do things without input? No.. It follows its parameters... This is observed all over in reality so if you wish to claim something different to what we see in reality you're going to need evidence.... Rather than just a statement based on opinion.

2. That is what anticedent conditions are..... So you agree there are anticedent conditions or are you playing word play?

3. Sounds pretty blas'e can you give some more details... (Additionally how can you demonstrate a mindless thing defying its prior (anticedent) conditions)

4. And this supports a mindless cause how? Demonstrating how God (an inteligent cause) does things doesn't mean you can correlate that to a mindless cause.

5. What theory? Need more details... Just saying stuff happens to this and that to that isn't a theory.

6. Already knew that... Ergo why the cause needs to be timeless and immaterial (spaceless) since in order to create time and space the cause must exist outside of time and space (a side point: this refutes naturalism).

No there were no anticedent conditions, but there will prior conditions. In a timeless world, it would be in a certain state. The forces in it would react to things in its prior state and change its state. It would enter a new state without entering a new time. This is a good model for how God would act. From the bible, we can infer that God has entered and exited space-time and he has performed multiple actions. So God does something similar. In the time-less realm, God performs an action of creating the universe. Next, he transformed into Jesus and came down to earth while having a part of himself in the timeless ream. Also, the bible discusses God's dealing with Lucifer this requires a sequence of events in a timeless realm where God an Lucifer interact with each other. This requires the theory I have put forward. You might ask whether cause and effect can happen at the same time, and in fact the cause has to be before the effect. My answer is that this rule only applies to places with time not to places without it. Anyway, if time was such a necessary part of cause and effect, then God would be completely frozen outside space-time because time has stopped. Apparently things can be done without time. Cause and effect are not necessarily bound to time.

You state that prior conditions must exist, but then go on to imply that an effect can occur without a prior cause. So your argument is contradictory. As aelyn pointed out, the moment that any change or event occurs, there minimally exists a past, present and future *relative to* that event. Furthermore, stating that an effect does not require a *prior* cause, defies logic... It's precisely the same as claiming that something can result from, or be caused by, absolute nothingness. In order for x to occur, something must exist *before* x. Otherwise, there is nothing before x which could bring about x. Instead, x would cause itself, which again is the same as getting something out of absolute nothingness (which is clearly impossible). If you argue that it's not equivalent to something from nothingness because a prior state existed, then you're actually arguing that the prior something is the cause (if it's not the cause, then you're back to something from pure nothingness)... So that's not a logical escape from the dilemma. Basically, your entire argument doesn't add up (at all). No offense.

Jonas... I will explain this in detail, one final time for you: God is all powerful, and therefore inherently able to create events (like the universe) with properties apart from Himself. Additionally, God's actions are the result of will and choice, rather than the result of a mindless causal chain of events eventually leading up to something (like our universe). So to bring about new event "x", God does not rely on an infinite past chain of events in order for the new event to occur. Instead, He wills for an event to happen and proceeds to cause it under His own power. It therefore does not matter if a thousand things happened in the past, or zero things happened in the past. There is nothing to prohibit God from causing event "x".

You cannot use the properties of God to prove that He exists. You must first show that those properties are necessary and then show that those properties define God.Must the first cause be "all powerful"? Can you support that logically?Must the first cause have the ability to choose? Can you support that logically?

Now, a "mindless something" obviously cannot cause event "x" to happen at any given moment, nor apart from its own properties, because the mindless something has neither the power nor will to do so. Rather, it is the mindless something *itself* which would have to morph and change at random in order to cause an event. I repeat, it is the mindless something *itself* which would have to morph and change in order for a given "x" to happen.

You are saying that mindless things do not change. What do you mean by that? What if change was a part of the mindless something's properties? Electromagnetic radiation changes as an inherent part of its existence. Couldn't a mindless something that is eternal and outside of time have change as one of its inherent properties? Why not?

Therefore, in order for an event like our universe to occur, some mindless thing not yet in the form of the universe (whether matter or energy or whatever), would have to go through an *eternity* of past changes, in order to "reach" whatever specific change it was that marked the beginning of our universe. But of course, an eternity of past changes (i.e., events) is impossible.

So you say but you don't know what is possible in an eternal timeless existence any more than I do. Why do you think you can declare that a mindless thing is unable to be changing while an intelligence can be changing in that existence?

Imagine that God creates a forest of trees. These trees exist apart from the properties of God Himself. Because God created them apart from Himself, they have a marked beginning and did not exist eternally. There is nothing that would prohibit an eternal, all powerful being from creating these trees: When God creates the trees, there they are! He created them of His own will and under His own power, and therefore, they did NOT for any reason require an infinite past series of events to come into existence. Now, switch gears and imagine a similar reality, but where God does not exist. Further, imagine that our forest of trees did not have a finite existence. Rather, imagine that our ever changing forest *is* the eternal mindless something (i.e., the forest of trees represents the mindless something). Further still, imagine that we want to "get to" a special oak tree representing our universe. Well, this special oak tree would obviously have to come about from a *prior* oak tree - since it could not have been caused *outright* by God's will and power! And that *prior* oak tree must have come about from another past oak tree (another change or event, as we refer to it). And then, *that* oak tree must have come from yet another prior oak tree... So on and so forth. This past causal chain continues *infinitely*, meaning that the first oak tree I mentioned - the one representing our universe - would have never come about; the reason being that an (impossible) infinite causal chain must be traversed to get to that eventual or "final" tree representing our universe.

You say God exists apart from the trees but insist the eternal mindless something must be part of the trees. Why can't the mindless something exist apart from the trees? I have stated that this is a possibility and you have not shown that it cannot be. Since the eternal mindless something is not part of the forest, a change in the mindless something could create the first tree.

...The difference between the intelligent and mindless scenarios is really quite simple. It rests in the way that events *originate* in each scenario. Either they originate as an act of will and omnipotence, which means that any given "x" can have a *beginning outside of its cause*. Or, they originate via a mindless causal chain (like the special tree representing our universe), where it is the mindless existence *itself* which must change and morph to bring about events (which leads to an impossible infinite regress).

Again, you have not shown that an act of will is required in an eternal timeless existence in order for change to occur.You say that a mindless eternal something in a timeless existence would be constrained by the problem of infinite regress but you don't know if infinite regress is a problem in a timeless existence because you don't know anything about the properties of a timeless existence. You are making assumptions about something that is not defined. Your claim that a God must exist is based on assumptions that cannot be logically supported.

1. If you profess that you were a Christian and God never answered a prayer for you then it indicates that you actually had your trust in something/someone else other than the Lord. I have seen a couple thousand answers to prayer in the last 44 yrs and I am by no means alone in such matters. 2. I told you the truth about the answer to prayer. There is no reason for me to change anything I said. If I did I would be the liar. 3. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT make the attempt to contact someone familiar with 'spiritmover' on UKChatterbox in London or (/> with Chickenhawx or the-dork-lord on imdb to see if what i had told you was the truth? Yes/no. If 'no' then I will stand up right here before my computer and dust myself off, per your challenge for me to do so.

1. What you see as answer to prayer is determined by your own perception. It is only evidence to you, not to me or anyone else. No prayers were answered for me in any way that I can relate the "answer" to the prayer.

2. I did not say you were lying. Just because you believe that your prayers was answered does not mean I should agree with your assessment. I only have your version of the events and that version could be in error or at least skewed by your beliefs.

3. I could not get on to UKChatterbox, the site appears to be down. I don't know for how long. All my searches for "spiritmover" have lead me to a couple of other chat boards where you have posted the same story you told me. The searches for the other two pseudonyms don't result in anything that I can determine is related to what you told me.

Lol... So when someone feels sad its because they've taken some damage to the brain, yet when they then feel happy its been repaired.... That is what you're concluding... How in the world did you get Solipsism?... Solipsism is where I believe that only my mind exists and thats it... The guy is talking about how we experience life as experience and whilst we may have similar experience of something we only experience something as experience itself. In that experience is not a material thing, yet we also build concepts about the world which are also not material for example.. please go to the store and buy me a jar of kilos... Or how about a jar of metres... Or how about a kilo of number 3... Such tconcepts are spoken more of in the video below This video talks about relations of matter and energy and how our mind creates relations with reality which are true, however are not a part of reality itself

1. You cannot use the properties of God to prove that He exists. You must first show that those properties are necessary and then show that those properties define God.

2. Must the first cause be "all powerful"? Can you support that logically?

3. Must the first cause have the ability to choose? Can you support that logically?

4. You are saying that mindless things do not change. What do you mean by that?

5. What if change was a part of the mindless something's properties?

6. Electromagnetic radiation changes as an inherent part of its existence.

7. Couldn't a mindless something that is eternal and outside of time have change as one of its inherent properties? Why not?

8. So you say but you don't know what is possible in an eternal timeless existence any more than I do.

9. Why do you think you can declare that a mindless thing is unable to be changing while an intelligence can be changing in that existence?

10. Your claim that a God must exist is based on assumptions that cannot be logically supported.

Gee wiz when it seems that you're being debunked you seem to just spout out questions that have already been addressed.... I'm thinking this may be either a red herring or a stalling "tactic"... Since no-one in their right minds would want to ask questions to / by them that have already been addressed and done with.

1. Already been done for you ...

Concepts are for philosophy whereas if you want to claim that there is an infinite amount of physical events then you are dealing with an "actual number" as its now meant to be something tangible within reality.

Causality is required due to the law of cause and effect. This law ensures that order is kept in that things don't spontaneously explode or pop in and out of existence etc. Therefore only things that have a sufficient cause can occur, for example a chemical reaction can only occur due to the cause of its activation energy and the energy levels of the reactants (as well as their relative affinity), we wouldn't expect reactions to occur without these requirements this expectation is due to the law of cause and effect. The first cause needs to be supernatural in order to escape requiring a cause.

Supernatual in light of being- timeless / eternal (always existing = no need to be created) - spaceless (something of the universe cannot create the universe, therefore there is the requirement to exist outside of this plane of existance) - omnipotent (something that creates the entire universe would need to be all-powerful)

The role of intelligence was already demonstrated to you before, which lies in the power of choice.

I already replied to you with this quote before so your asking here means either you do not read my posts or you've forgotten.

2. Its kinda self explanatory... For something to bring into being, time, space, laws of logic, laws of nature, matter, energy, constants of matter and energy etc... That something literally MUST be all-powerful.

3. Sigh... Already been done via my recent posts but I guess you prefer to just ignore their implications. From post #147 just above

"I have staked my claim in the logic that a mindless thing cannot choose to operate beyond what it is / set to do. A (mindless) clock doesn't suddenly turn its hands into legs and walk around does it? A (mindless) computer doesn't choose to turn itself on and do things without input? No.. It follows its parameters... This is observed all over in reality so if you wish to claim something different to what we see in reality you're going to need evidence.... Rather than just a statement based on opinion."

4. See point 3 since its the same thing... Since choice comes from intelligence, meaning no mindless cause.

5. See point 3, as I said, a mindless thing following its parameters is what we see in reality, you have no evidence to state otherwise, hence if you wish to claim something that defies what we see in reality you are going to need evidence... (Lest atheism be based on a personal want rather than logic).

6. That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer.

7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event.

8. Read through the thread, we have been using logical lines of inference, rather than you hopeful postulating, in that 'maybe there is some way a mindless God-like thing could exist'

9. Because an intelligent cause can CHOOSE to change, that is the point!! A mindless thing is limited to what it is or programmed to do, (as I have said before), it literally doesn't "know" any other way.

10. If you bothered to read the replies and such you would see how false such a claim is...

1. What you see as answer to prayer is determined by your own perception. It is only evidence to you, not to me or anyone else. No prayers were answered for me in any way that I can relate the "answer" to the prayer. 2. I did not say you were lying. Just because you believe that your prayers was answered does not mean I should agree with your assessment. I only have your version of the events and that version could be in error or at least skewed by your beliefs. 3. I could not get on to UKChatterbox, the site appears to be down. I don't know for how long. All my searches for "spiritmover" have lead me to a couple of other chat boards where you have posted the same story you told me. The searches for the other two pseudonyms don't result in anything that I can determine is related to what you told me. That's the best I can do. So, how about those six words?

What a fool you are (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, Pslam 14:1).

When I send a message to my dad that I need $125 for something and I get an envelope with $125 in it...It don't stand there and argue with anyone where it came from. I KNOW where it came from. And when I once prayed for $206.80 for an LP fuel bill in the middle of winter because they wouldn't give me a fill-up unless I paid what was owed...and that $206.80 came from three different unexpected sources...then I know who the ultimate source was. I have seen this sort of thing repeatedly through the years.

Now concerning UKChatterbox. At least you were honest enough to admit the site was down...which I discovered myself a day or so after we last communicated. Nonetheless I told the truth in the matter and I am not backing down to you. Spiritmover, who is now known as Jean White (formerly Jean Goth) lives on the north side of London and she attends a Baptist congregation in that area. I regret having lost contact with her for I could potentially put you in direct touch with her. But then, you obviously have no heart to believe that God is real and truly answers the prayers of those who call upon Him in truth.

So what about imdb? I likewise took a look at that website to see if you went on board to ask those two posters about what happened but I never saw your name nor any questions from anyone about that incident. I even checked 'Fiendishly Cunning Chix' to see if you had approached her about the matter. It took me all of about 1 minute to find her, (& likewise you could have done so yourself) but neither your name nor the questions you should have asked were there. So your half-hearted effort resulted in just what you wanted it to result in: nothing. But again, nonetheless, what I prayed for is a matter of public record in the archives of imdb and had you really cared enough to look like I told you then you would have found it.

So I ask you; what are you doing here on this Christian/creationist website, Mr. athiest? Are you hear because you wish to convert some of us to your accidentalist views about the world and to your hopeless future and despair? Well, I want nothing of it and I think my brethren feel much the same way.

Gilbo: Quote: "Its kinda self explanatory... For something to bring into being, time, space, laws of logic, laws of nature, matter, energy, constants of matter and energy etc... That something literally MUST be all-powerful."

Why you poor blind man....don't you know that all those things just came out of nothing...and had no cause! What's the matter with you? Don't you know your 'science'?

Gilbo: Quote: "Its kinda self explanatory... For something to bring into being, time, space, laws of logic, laws of nature, matter, energy, constants of matter and energy etc... That something literally MUST be all-powerful." Why you poor blind man....don't you know that all those things just came out of nothing...and had no cause! What's the matter with you? Don't you know your 'science'?

Gee wiz when it seems that you're being debunked you seem to just spout out questions that have already been addressed.... I'm thinking this may be either a red herring or a stalling "tactic"... Since no-one in their right minds would want to ask questions to / by them that have already been addressed and done with. 1. Already been done for you ... I already replied to you with this quote before so your asking here means either you do not read my posts or you've forgotten.

Your three criteria are simply declared as timeless, spaceless and omnipotent. I will agree with the first two because of the causality problem.

2. Its kinda self explanatory... For something to bring into being, time, space, laws of logic, laws of nature, matter, energy, constants of matter and energy etc... That something literally MUST be all-powerful.

When did you become an all-knowing physicist? I thought you were learning to be a biochemist. What is it about the beginning of the universe that you know such that you can declare all of these things require omnipotence to have them come about? You have no idea what timeless, spaceless existence is or the limitations placed on any "thing" that is in that existence. You can't declare what abilities are necessary for something that is timeless, and spaceless just because those abilities fit your version of a God.

3. Sigh... Already been done via my recent posts but I guess you prefer to just ignore their implications. From post #147 just above "I have staked my claim in the logic that a mindless thing cannot choose to operate beyond what it is / set to do. A (mindless) clock doesn't suddenly turn its hands into legs and walk around does it? A (mindless) computer doesn't choose to turn itself on and do things without input? No.. It follows its parameters... This is observed all over in reality so if you wish to claim something different to what we see in reality you're going to need evidence.... Rather than just a statement based on opinion." 4. See point 3 since its the same thing... Since choice comes from intelligence, meaning no mindless cause.

However, mindless things change all the time in our reality. Electromagnetic radiation changes in intensity and direction of motion as it propagates from one place to another. Heat moves from hot objects to cold ones changing the temperature of both. Why would mindless things be unable to change if they were spaceless, and timeless? Why is choice necessary if a mindless thing can change and timeless, spaceless mindless things are at least as plausible as timeless spaceless intelligent things?

5. See point 3, as I said, a mindless thing following its parameters is what we see in reality, you have no evidence to state otherwise, hence if you wish to claim something that defies what we see in reality you are going to need evidence... (Lest atheism be based on a personal want rather than logic).

Mindless things change in our realithy all the time so I am not claiming something that defies what we see.

6. That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer.

Keeping within its parameters does not prevent the mindless thing from causing a change in something outside itself. No decision is necessary for a hot object to change the temperature of a cold object next to it.

7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event.

Again, you don't get to decide what the limitations of a timeless existence are. The thing is timeless...that means there is no anticedent and there is no logical reason for us to determine that an anticedent is necessary for change to occur in a timeless existence.

8. Read through the thread, we have been using logical lines of inference, rather than you hopeful postulating, in that 'maybe there is some way a mindless God-like thing could exist'

You have not been using logical lines of inference because you continually infer that a timeless spaceless existence should follow the rules that govern the reality that we live in. That is an assumption that you cannot logically support and the rest of your argument hinges on that assumption.

9. Because an intelligent cause can CHOOSE to change, that is the point!! A mindless thing is limited to what it is or programmed to do, (as I have said before), it literally doesn't "know" any other way. 10. If you bothered to read the replies and such you would see how false such a claim is...

Support your assumption that the timeless spaceless existence that brought about our reality was required to follow the physics that governs our reality. If you can't do that then you can't support your argument logically.

//You must first show that those properties are necessary and then show that those properties define God. Must the first cause be "all powerful"? Can you support that logically? Must the first cause have the ability to choose? Can you support that logically?//

I've shown logically that the properties of God are *required* to explain the origin of the universe and all that we observe - precisely what you're suggesting be demonstrated. And an eternal being with the power to create the universe as an act of will *does* define God, lol.

//You are saying that mindless things do not change. What do you mean by that? What if change was a part of the mindless something's properties? Electromagnetic radiation changes as an inherent part of its existence. Couldn't a mindless something that is eternal and outside of time have change as one of its inherent properties? Why not? So you say but you don't know what is possible in an eternal timeless existence any more than I do. Why do you think you can declare that a mindless thing is unable to be changing while an intelligence can be changing in that existence?//

Wow. No. I've stated entirely the opposite, that a mindless eternal something would be in a constant state of change.

//You say God exists apart from the trees but insist the eternal mindless something must be part of the trees. Why can't the mindless something exist apart from the trees? I have stated that this is a possibility and you have not shown that it cannot be. Since the eternal mindless something is not part of the forest, a change in the mindless something could create the first tree.//

That only pushes the problem with mindless causation back one step. You end up with precisely the same dilemma with the "original" mindless something (or the one before that, or the one before that, etc.).

//Again, you have not shown that an act of will is required in an eternal timeless existence in order for change to occur.//

Denial. I just did (yet again). And my argument stands, because you've completely failed to refute it.

//You say that a mindless eternal something in a timeless existence would be constrained by the problem of infinite regress but you don't know if infinite regress is a problem in a timeless existence because you don't know anything about the properties of a timeless existence. You are making assumptions about something that is not defined. Your claim that a God must exist is based on assumptions that cannot be logically supported.//

We know that for an event or change to occur, there must be an antecedent. Otherwise, as I've said, you're arguing the equivalent of something from nothing, which is logically impossible...

In order for "x" to occur, something must exist before x (the antecedent). Otherwise, there is nothing before x which could bring about x. Instead, x would bring about itself, which again is equivalent to getting something out of absolute nothingness. If you argue that it's not equivalent to something from nothingness perhaps because a prior state existed, then you're actually arguing that the prior something is the cause (and if it's not the cause, then you're back to the equivalent of something from pure nothingness).

What a fool you are (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, Pslam 14:1).

When I send a message to my dad that I need $125 for something and I get an envelope with $125 in it...It don't stand there and argue with anyone where it came from. I KNOW where it came from. And when I once prayed for $206.80 for an LP fuel bill in the middle of winter because they wouldn't give me a fill-up unless I paid what was owed...and that $206.80 came from three different unexpected sources...then I know who the ultimate source was. I have seen this sort of thing repeatedly through the years.

Now concerning UKChatterbox. At least you were honest enough to admit the site was down...which I discovered myself a day or so after we last communicated. Nonetheless I told the truth in the matter and I am not backing down to you. Spiritmover, who is now known as Jean White (formerly Jean Goth) lives on the north side of London and she attends a Baptist congregation in that area. I regret having lost contact with her for I could potentially put you in direct touch with her. But then, you obviously have no heart to believe that God is real and truly answers the prayers of those who call upon Him in truth.

So what about imdb? I likewise took a look at that website to see if you went on board to ask those two posters about what happened but I never saw your name nor any questions from anyone about that incident. I even checked 'Fiendishly Cunning Chix' to see if you had approached her about the matter. It took me all of about 1 minute to find her, (&amp;amp; likewise you could have done so yourself) but neither your name nor the questions you should have asked were there. So your half-hearted effort resulted in just what you wanted it to result in: nothing. But again, nonetheless, what I prayed for is a matter of public record in the archives of imdb and had you really cared enough to look like I told you then you would have found it.

So I ask you; what are you doing here on this Christian/creationist website, Mr. athiest? Are you hear because you wish to convert some of us to your accidentalist views about the world and to your hopeless future and despair? Well, I want nothing of it and I think my brethren feel much the same way.

Excuse me while I stand and dust myself off.

No doubt Jonas readily accepts the testimony of scientists in a lab, when they speak or write about an experiment which supposedly supports that evolution. But when a Christian gives testimony of a miracle, then Jonas rejects it outright. In both cases, the evidence is anecdotal unless Jonas claims to have been in the lab himself, witnessing what was going on. So he accepts testimony outright where it suits him, and rejects it outright where it doesn't.